Riskismy wrote:I like the bonus scheme (that you don't absolutely have to have all territories to get a bonus). However, I'd rephrase the legend to read 'the capital', as opposed to naming each territory. Took me several minutes to locate the first territory and home in on the idea. It conveys the same idea, only now you don't have to look around the map (so much) to understand it.

The problem with that is that it would suggest that you could hold any capital to get the bonus, when in fact you need to hold the matching capital of the area to get that area's bonus. With limited space in the legend, the current solution is the best I can see for now.

Riskismy wrote:I like the bonus scheme (that you don't absolutely have to have all territories to get a bonus). However, I'd rephrase the legend to read 'the capital', as opposed to naming each territory. Took me several minutes to locate the first territory and home in on the idea. It conveys the same idea, only now you don't have to look around the map (so much) to understand it.

The problem with that is that it would suggest that you could hold any capital to get the bonus, when in fact you need to hold the matching capital of the area to get that area's bonus. With limited space in the legend, the current solution is the best I can see for now.

Maybe Natty can fit a little version of the capital icon in there after the territory name. Legend space is tight, but I'm just saying...

In the legend, since we are talking about it---could you make the number digits stand out more? Perhaps making them either slightly larger / in a different but similar font? The numbers kind of get lost in the font, since it is not a typical one. I think enhancing the numbers might also make for understanding the gameplay (the current topic of discussion) easier.

Riskismy wrote:I like the bonus scheme (that you don't absolutely have to have all territories to get a bonus). However, I'd rephrase the legend to read 'the capital', as opposed to naming each territory. Took me several minutes to locate the first territory and home in on the idea. It conveys the same idea, only now you don't have to look around the map (so much) to understand it.

The problem with that is that it would suggest that you could hold any capital to get the bonus, when in fact you need to hold the matching capital of the area to get that area's bonus. With limited space in the legend, the current solution is the best I can see for now.

Come now. Only a complete fool or noob would think that you could hold just any capital and get the bonus, when you have one line for each bonus region, as well as mentioning the name of that region.

oh, I really like the changes to the font of the legend. Much more legible now.

Riskismy wrote:Come now. Only a complete fool or noob would think that you could hold just any capital and get the bonus, when you have one line for each bonus region, as well as mentioning the name of that region.

No, that's not good enough. We can't make an unclear legend and assume that the players will "get it", it needs to be unambiguous in all aspects.

If the players are clever enough to use a browser, they'll understand what the bonus scheme is just fine, even with just 'the capital' - in fact, I posit they'll understand it much better and not least faster.Personally, I don't care. I (finally) figured it out. I just figured you'd like to make it easier on your players.

We have capital symbols there, which lets the players know what is going on, and we also have the capital names, refering to the exact territories, so players will know for sure which territory they need.

- 2 new territories added: Tanma and ? (name to be decided)- Gaya gets a capital, which is also required to get the Gaya bonus- Cosmetic changes: lands moved a bit

As for neutrals, now there's 47 territories, of which 5 capitals, 7 castles and 2 Wa-territories start neutral, giving us 33 starting territories, and absolutely no chances to drop any bonuses. 2 player games start with 11 each, 8 player games start with 4 each, rest are something in between...

I thought we decided Wa to be +2...? Seems like a good idea to me, given the deficit, and considering Castles yield +1 for just a single territory. As for the other bonuses, they seem quite out-of-balance - +2 for each territory with a capital?? I mean, given Tang and the easily defensible Quingdao, (not to mention how may territories Tang has (9), that's a potential +17 for just six borders) it just seems over powered. Comments for the other bonus areas:

Wa - Some further comments - Why the -4? And won't Wa cause problems if somebody takes it over to start then wants to spread out? Who's gonna take that negative bonus once the Wa guy has a capital? I suppose it could work, but I feel you may have issues with stranded players.

Gaya - given all of its territories are striped, those territories are gonna have value to other players, so a +1 for 1 seems warranted, especially given none of those territories are easily guarded. And, since there are only 3 territories plus the capital, one can only get a maximum +1 out of it, as it stands.

Silla - Now thinking about it... I think a +2 per 1 with capital can work, given its position and the striped territories and whatnot. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

Goguryeo - This is good. It allows for more action in the northern and north-eastern portions of the map, that would otherwise be largely ignored.

Baekje - Given the castles, I think the bonus will work here.

Tang - I think I covered all my concerns with this area already. My suggestion is +1 for 1.

since there are only 3 territories plus the capital, one can only get a maximum +1 out of it, as it stands.

Why do you think the capital isn't included?

Both castles and capitals do count towards area bonuses. (I think.)

Anyway, all other points are good, I would support these changes:

Wa = +2Tang = +3 for 2Gaya = +1 for 1

Wa... yeah. i can get behind that so long as it still retains that -4 for holding any capital with the bonus. Tang... I can get behind that as well. Tang needs to be a strong area, but perhaps I might have over done it. Gaya... I'm not liking it. I don't like the idea of Gaya being a good place to hole up and use as a base of operations. I think it make Gaya too powerful. Their historical function was to be a weak confederacy that was absorbed by Baekje and Silla, the map ought to reflect this towards the middle part of the game.

Wa... yeah. i can get behind that so long as it still retains that -4 for holding any capital with the bonus. Tang... I can get behind that as well. Tang needs to be a strong area, but perhaps I might have over done it. Gaya... I'm not liking it. I don't like the idea of Gaya being a good place to hole up and use as a base of operations. I think it make Gaya too powerful. Their historical function was to be a weak confederacy that was absorbed by Baekje and Silla, the map ought to reflect this towards the middle part of the game.

Well, I think Gaya would still be relatively weak, due to small size and each territory being a border. But I also understand your reasoning, so I'll go ahead and change Tang & Wa.

I can't make all colours equally dark. That would not work for the colourblind people. With colourblind filters on, some colours looked the same, so some differences in lightness needed to be added to the colours.

There shouldn't be any visibility problems. All colours are visible. Or do you mean something else?

I did not say darker. I said more opacity. when you think all colours are good visible go with current version. your map. just goguryeo seems realy too light. and in bon-gaya are stripes enclosed by green sail and capital icon...

about bon-gaya, I do not know... just when there will be army numbers I´m not sure if it will be clear. the right blue stripe is under green sail, the bottom left is under capital icon. when army number will be on the upper right stripe - this is what I mean.